Okay, here's the deal PS. Your definition of Obama as a marxist and/or progressive hinges upon things he's said or people he's associated with. My definition of Obama as a Republican in Democrat clothing hinges upon the laws he's signed and the policies he's implemented since being president. Are you saying that a better barometer of the president's political ideology is what he's said and people he's associated with? If the answer to that question is yes, you are delusional, but let's say the answer is yes. If the answer is yes, my response is, "so what?" since the evidence of the last four years points to him being a Republican, not a marxist and not a progressive.

Let me give you a simple example - I can say that I prefer the Waterloo map to all other maps. I an in a user group that mostly plays the Waterloo map. If I have never played Waterloo, does that make me a Waterloo player? No, it does not.

This is not a criticism of your being able to criticize the president. Rather, this is a criticism of how you have labelled the president and how you present your arguments. He is NOT a Marxist. He is NOT a progressive.

Phatscotty wrote:I wish to challenge the progressive assertion. The Communist party of America officially changed their name to the Progressive Party of America sometime in the early 1900's. They may have dropped a couple of planks from their agenda over the last century, but I would say the drops are more due to being outdated. You seem to agree there are some/many similarities, I would just state it's my opinion that the similarities that Progressives share with Communists/Marxists are many/barely indistinguishable. Especially with all the class warfare and racial and social division that is starting to be called "acceptable".

It's humorous that you believe the "class warfare and racial and social division that is starting to be called 'acceptable'" is coming solely from the Democrats. Not surprising...just humorous.

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

Bauer, the feisty attorney Reagan named to push his social issue agenda, said the President may accomplish some of his goals in such areas as abortion and pornography through a series of executive orders and by his appointment of conservative judges to the federal judiciary, including his nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork to the Supreme Court.

"With a hostile Congress that doesn't show much sign of coming toward us on some of these issues, it behooves us to take the initiative when we can take it," Bauer said.

There are a number of things "the President can unilaterally do," Bauer said, as evidenced by the plan Reagan announced three weeks ago to curb federal funding for organizations and groups that support abortion.

Also, two more fun notes from the article on Regan, especially the second item in reference to your concerns about immigration :

--The Administration dropped Reagan's campaign pledge to eliminate the Education Department because it could find no more than seven or eight senators who were willing to endorse the idea and "decided instead to make sure that as long as we're in office anyway that the department runs like a Reagan Department of Education, that is, to emphasize back-to-basic values, that sort of thing."

--He would oppose increasing federal funding to help border states such as California and Texas cope with the additional burden of providing services for illegal immigrants who are becoming legal under the new immigration law. In the long run, he said, the border states "are going to be helped a lot more by a vibrant long-term economic expansion than they will be by whether one categorical program in Washington has a couple billion more dollars in it or not."

Bauer, the feisty attorney Reagan named to push his social issue agenda, said the President may accomplish some of his goals in such areas as abortion and pornography through a series of executive orders and by his appointment of conservative judges to the federal judiciary, including his nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork to the Supreme Court.

"With a hostile Congress that doesn't show much sign of coming toward us on some of these issues, it behooves us to take the initiative when we can take it," Bauer said.

There are a number of things "the President can unilaterally do," Bauer said, as evidenced by the plan Reagan announced three weeks ago to curb federal funding for organizations and groups that support abortion.

Also, two more fun notes from the article on Regan, especially the second item in reference to your concerns about immigration :

--The Administration dropped Reagan's campaign pledge to eliminate the Education Department because it could find no more than seven or eight senators who were willing to endorse the idea and "decided instead to make sure that as long as we're in office anyway that the department runs like a Reagan Department of Education, that is, to emphasize back-to-basic values, that sort of thing."

--He would oppose increasing federal funding to help border states such as California and Texas cope with the additional burden of providing services for illegal immigrants who are becoming legal under the new immigration law. In the long run, he said, the border states "are going to be helped a lot more by a vibrant long-term economic expansion than they will be by whether one categorical program in Washington has a couple billion more dollars in it or not."

--Andy

SOROS!!!!!

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

Yup. Before peeps start flippin out, yes, I know that the Progressive Party of today is no longer trying to resegregate our military, like Woodrow Wilson did, that the PP of today is no longer making alliances with the Klu Klux Klan, like Woodrow Wilson did, the PP of today no longer seeks to push for abortion of any pregnancies that won't be a white baby, like Margaret Sanger (founder of planned parenthood), but the PP of today does seek to redistribute the wealth, just like FDR, to take from one person and give to another (after the government removes it 50% cut...oops, i mean "waste"), the PP of today does seek to grow the government larger and more powerful, defacto shrinking our Liberty, the PP of today does advocate for universal gov't programs (healthcare, education), the PP of today is just as anti-free markets, anti-free speech, and anti-freedom in general as they always have been. Not that most of them know they are against freedom, but they just think about it wrong (such as the chik-fil-a thing) and they are the source of most of the garbage (just as much by Progressive Republicans as well)

I hold that the PP of today found a new, more useful way to convince their disciples to stay and serve on the plantation, and they have not changed because they realized their history of racism was wrong, but they changed because they are better and smarter and richer now and have different systems to manipulate and control people

thegreekdog wrote:Okay, here's the deal PS. Your definition of Obama as a marxist and/or progressive hinges upon things he's said or people he's associated with. My definition of Obama as a Republican in Democrat clothing hinges upon the laws he's signed and the policies he's implemented since being president. Are you saying that a better barometer of the president's political ideology is what he's said and people he's associated with? If the answer to that question is yes, you are delusional, but let's say the answer is yes. If the answer is yes, my response is, "so what?" since the evidence of the last four years points to him being a Republican, not a marxist and not a progressive.

Let me give you a simple example - I can say that I prefer the Waterloo map to all other maps. I an in a user group that mostly plays the Waterloo map. If I have never played Waterloo, does that make me a Waterloo player? No, it does not.

This is not a criticism of your being able to criticize the president. Rather, this is a criticism of how you have labelled the president and how you present your arguments. He is NOT a Marxist. He is NOT a progressive.

PS - don't make me do this. Just address my post. Don't ignore it because I don't want to have to pull a Woodruff on you and quote it on every page until you answer.

Phatscotty wrote:I hold that the PP of today found a new, more useful way to convince their disciples to stay and serve on the plantation, and they have not changed because they realized their history of racism was wrong, but they changed because they are better and smarter and richer now and have different systems to manipulate and control people

It actually makes sense to you that progressives of today think that racism is "right"?

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

thegreekdog wrote:Okay, here's the deal PS. Your definition of Obama as a marxist and/or progressive hinges upon things he's said or people he's associated with. My definition of Obama as a Republican in Democrat clothing hinges upon the laws he's signed and the policies he's implemented since being president. Are you saying that a better barometer of the president's political ideology is what he's said and people he's associated with? If the answer to that question is yes, you are delusional, but let's say the answer is yes. If the answer is yes, my response is, "so what?" since the evidence of the last four years points to him being a Republican, not a marxist and not a progressive.

Let me give you a simple example - I can say that I prefer the Waterloo map to all other maps. I an in a user group that mostly plays the Waterloo map. If I have never played Waterloo, does that make me a Waterloo player? No, it does not.

This is not a criticism of your being able to criticize the president. Rather, this is a criticism of how you have labelled the president and how you present your arguments. He is NOT a Marxist. He is NOT a progressive.

PS - don't make me do this. Just address my post. Don't ignore it because I don't want to have to pull a Woodruff on you and quote it on every page until you answer.

Ha! Like that has shamed him into answering them? Good luck.

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

Yup. Before peeps start flippin out, yes, I know that the Progressive Party of today is no longer

Does the Progressive Party have a website? Could you post the URL so we can visit it? It might help to eradicate some of the skepticism you're facing as to whether a national political party called "Progressive Party" exists.

thegreekdog wrote:Okay, here's the deal PS. Your definition of Obama as a marxist and/or progressive hinges upon things he's said or people he's associated with. My definition of Obama as a Republican in Democrat clothing hinges upon the laws he's signed and the policies he's implemented since being president. Are you saying that a better barometer of the president's political ideology is what he's said and people he's associated with? If the answer to that question is yes, you are delusional, but let's say the answer is yes. If the answer is yes, my response is, "so what?" since the evidence of the last four years points to him being a Republican, not a marxist and not a progressive.

Let me give you a simple example - I can say that I prefer the Waterloo map to all other maps. I an in a user group that mostly plays the Waterloo map. If I have never played Waterloo, does that make me a Waterloo player? No, it does not.

This is not a criticism of your being able to criticize the president. Rather, this is a criticism of how you have labelled the president and how you present your arguments. He is NOT a Marxist. He is NOT a progressive.

I realize that. I also understand why you say he's the same as any president. Of course words do not match up to actions, but I will say, that because of Obama covering up his paper trail all his life, voting "present" 97% of the time while in the state Senate....."a better barometer of the president's political ideology is what he's said and people he's associated with?" It's not about being better or worse....it's about being all we have! Wait, you mean you think I would actually answer yes to your question? Okay now that's just insulting.

I think Obama is a Leftist, a Collectivist, a socialist, a Marxist, whatever you want to call it....he is about redistributing other peoples wealth, and I believe he is ALL about it, more than any president in recent history, and probably the most since FDR. And I think that because he has surrounded himself with those kind of people, which means he believes in and is comfortable around those kinds of people, and not just in the last 2 years, or the last 4 years.....all...his....life. His friends at the University he taught at, the leader of his church, his spiritual leader today, his mentor from age 10-16, the direction his mother set for him...the guy hung a Mao Christmas ornament on the tree at the White House. Technically, that is an action

Would you be able to agree Obama was a Marxist if his college records turn up a thesis paper titled "The Glory of Karl Marx's ball sack"? Or does that just count as "something he said"

Yup. Before peeps start flippin out, yes, I know that the Progressive Party of today is no longer

Does the Progressive Party have a website? Could you post the URL so we can visit it? It might help to eradicate some of the skepticism you're facing as to whether a national political party called "Progressive Party" exists.

Okay, I should not have used the word party. But, my choice of words do not change the similarities in the polices of Progressives and Communism or any other theories or philosophies based on or attributed to Marx.

Yup. Before peeps start flippin out, yes, I know that the Progressive Party of today is no longer

Does the Progressive Party have a website? Could you post the URL so we can visit it? It might help to eradicate some of the skepticism you're facing as to whether a national political party called "Progressive Party" exists.

Okay, I should not have used the word party. But, my choice of words do not change the similarities in the polices of Progressives and Communism or any other theories or philosophies based on or attributed to Marx.

Dear voters, as you may have noticed, all the stops are being pulled out on this one, and Phatty is gonna get a run for his money. By the end of this thread, we are going to know once and for all whether or not Obama is a Marxist. I can continue to stand alone for about 5 more pages, as I have about 7 more points that I am going to make in this thread that show Obama has willingly identified with the Marxist philosophy in the past and in the present. I have plenty of words and speeches and examples to pull from, but we are going to need some solid examples of actions that can be shown as Obama advancing the philosophy of Marxism or advancing the tenets of the Communist Manifesto, or advancing the Progressive agenda, be it Collective Salvation, or the constant advancement and permanence of the redistribution of wealth. When and if the day comes where I run out of examples and evidence, I need you guys to have one or two more examples ready to go and we can continue the glorious struggle on the battlefield of ideas and curb the growing trends of Socialism, Progressivism, and Communism.

In 1978, Gen. Leigh, Vice-Chairman of the Chilean military junta, resigned in protest over a disagreement in the economic policies of Gen. Pinochet. Pinochet, at the time, was moving forward with mass privatization of the Chilean economy. Gen. Leigh supported total state control.

The point being, Leigh was an avowed anti-Marxist and his anti-Marxist credentials can't be questioned. He had one of his eyes shot out of its socket in an assassination attempt by the Manuel Rodriguez Movement. After the coup against Allende he personally oversaw the execution of 200 members of Popular Unity and called Castro a dictator. But he opposed economic privatization. Marxism is a very specific way of looking at the world - not whether you support a 25% or 35% marginal tax rate or if you oppose or support amending sub-section whatever of appendix X of the SEC consolidated omnibus bill of 197something.

Obama is a book club leftist who spent university chattering about Rosa Luxemburg over cappuccinos because it fed some prissy intellectual void in his mind, then he got old and cynical - figured the big house in Hyde Park and the Lexus was better than his 5-minute youthful dream of tromping through a Bolivian cocoa field with Che - realized the money train was about to pull into his station and stapled a "For Sale Rent" sign to his forehead. A communist revolution would mean the end of Goldman Sachs. Goldman-Sachs wouldn't give millions to Obama if he were plotting to have their directors hanged from lamp posts on Broad Street.

saxitoxin wrote:Obama is a book club leftist who spent university chattering about Rosa Luxemburg over cappuccinos because it fed some prissy intellectual void in his mind, then he got old and cynical - figured the big house in Hyde Park and the Lexus was better than his 5-minute youthful dream of tromping through ...

Replace "Obama" with "BBS", "leftist" with "anarcho-capitalist" and "Rosa Luxemburg" with "Ludwig von Mises" and I think I've just inadvertently predicted the future ...

saxitoxin wrote:Obama is a book club leftist who spent university chattering about Rosa Luxemburg over cappuccinos because it fed some prissy intellectual void in his mind, then he got old and cynical - figured the big house in Hyde Park and the Lexus was better than his 5-minute youthful dream of tromping through ......a seastead with Patri Friedman - realized the money train was about to pull into his station and stapled a "For Sale Rent" sign to his forehead. An anarcho-capitalist revolution would mean the end of [Future Moneybags Inc.]. [Future Moneybags Inc.] wouldn't give millions to BBS if he were plotting to have their directors survive within a competitive legal and regulatory system.

Replace "Obama" with "BBS", "leftist" with "anarcho-capitalist" and "Rosa Luxemburg" with "Ludwig von Mises" and I think I've just inadvertently predicted the future ...

Just wanted to share a little piece I have come across in my intense research of Obama's connections to Marxism. If you can get over the person who is repeating the information, you will be able to get the information. Yes, I know most of this is "words" but these words are going to guide my investigation of where to look for the actions, and at least they are Obama's words.

Phatscotty wrote:Just wanted to share a little piece I have come across in my intense research of Obama's connections to Marxism. If you can get over the person who is repeating the information, you will be able to get the information. Yes, I know most of this is "words" but these words are going to guide my investigation of where to look for the actions, and at least they are Obama's words.